Each one of these goals led to the creation of several organizations
all over the world by linking global, regional, or bilateral
interests, and depending on the issue of concern, the little or much
success of such organization. Generally, the most successful are
those based on economic aspects, like trade, investment or control of
prices, while those which main aim is human development face
innumerable difficulties. The first ones are more profitable than
the others.

Who are the members of these international organizations? Well, it
depends on the kind of organization we talk about. Let us say there
is a group of countries concerned for increasing the regional
commerce in order to strengthen their economies before the other
regions so they negotiate the terms and create an Association of
South-East Asian Nations. It is a competitive world, and so
countries need allies to reach certain aims. It is like joining to a
club... Or, let us think about several nations with a common,
powerful enemy, who threatens global security and democracy. Then we
could expect the birth of a North-Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
Until this point there are only countries being considered to
participate in international organizations, but there are some people
who also think they have a voice in the world, and a mission, and
they care about human rights, and thus they create Human Rights
Watch; or they want to protect environment, and then they agree on
establishing a Greenpeace (did anyone ever think peace would be green
one day?) organization; and they believe or pretend they can make the
thinks become different. But, can they?

Here it is required to evaluate the dimensions of powers involved,
how they operate, the relations among them, and the different
approaches to a possible cooperation.

If nation-states join a group of countries in an international
organization, it is because they need of their help or their support,
or they just want to have a friendlier image in face to the
international society. But there are countries which do not need
that kind of support in some ways, and that is one of the main
reasons for the failure of international organizations, such as UN,
specially the Security Council, where five nations have the power to
decree a veto on any decision, making it very difficult to reach a
general agreement.

In other cases, when it is about signing a Treaty or Convention, the
national sovereignty of one country (better not to say the name of
that or those countries) often opposes the efforts of most of the
other countries to reach consensus, and dialogue is stopped, or the
agreements accomplished do not apply completely. Besides, there is
no way to oblige a country to sign it or to ratify it.

The strongest organizations are those emerged from a security threat,
but they last only the same time that the risk, and once it is gone
there is no more reason for it to continue existing, at least there
is another danger menacing security (the threat could be invented
then to keep the organization alive, as it has occurred frequently).
Although their effectiveness, when it is attempted to increase
cooperation by handing over sovereignty, the barriers appear and
cooperation becomes rather difficult, as it happened to some European
organization which tried to create a strong defense for the region.

Can peace be achieved through dialogue? Maybe until now there has
not been any true dialogue among nations, because war and anger
continue, and violence increases dangerously. Those institutions
created to permit dialogue have no impact on foreign policies,
because countries can talk but they are deaf. Every one exposes its
own point of view, but they will never go any further than their own
interest. Will General Assembly of UN discuss really any problem
some day? Furthermore, if they really discussed the challenges world
is facing, yet no consensus is possible because of the diversity of
interests. In this sense, UN is an illusion of world democracy and
dialogue. A pretension of equality. That stuff of giving each
member one vote. What for? If at the end their voice will sound as
a distant echo in the night. The compromise of nations is a
beautiful and impossible ideal.

But the compromise of people is another different thing.
Organizations based on civil participation are large and active, even
though the results are not always flattering. When somebody accepts
freely to join a cause, it is more likely that his compromise will be
deeper than the compromise of nations. International organizations
do not profit, and so it is necessary to believe on it to work on it.
The labor of these institutions is very uncomfortable for
corporations and oppressive or corrupted governments, and sometimes
its members risk themselves for the cause they believe in. But,
despite they would be more effective in abstract, in reality they are
weakened by the other forces existing in the international arena.
Corporations have huge economic power, so big to change laws and push
governments to allow their abuses.

Corporations join into international organizations too, and as it
could be imagined, those organizations are more powerful and more
effective than the others. The pure profit search. The complete
forget of principles and beliefs.

In such a world, international organizations have failed to
accomplish the purpose they were created for.

As time goes by, the problems among nations are getting harder, and
even though the people try to stop the oppression, their effort is
not enough against the powers it is facing.